[Archived] Trustees Crisis Meeting

[Paul Mellelieu]

I always enjoy Iamarover's posts. A welcome break from the usual guff.

[PAFELL]

Yes you do know. No trustees can take money out like that. That is exactly why Jack put the club in a Trusteeship rather than sell it to a private concern of the type all numpties on this board seem to want. Since Jack's death the Trustees have sunk in over £45m and converted debt to equity. In effect wiping out the £110m liability caused by Jack's noble spendfest. Name me one other owner in the UK which has done more than that. Then think of the likelihood of anyone else coming in with a promise to blow £3m a year without taking a salary, a dividend or any reward for the shameful abuse heaped upon them by people on this board. Who do you think you are? The Trust refused to sell to Williams. A magnificent decision. They asked for more money from Credit Crunch Ronnie and ..guess what... was the right decision. They didnt appoint Paul Ince and they dont select the side. What they do is prevent a Ridsdale like fantasist of the type who regularly post on here blowing ridiculous sums in pursuit of the impossible. They also prevent the raping and shaming of the club in the manner of Brighton, Wrexham, and dozens of other clubs, and stop clowns like Ashley pulling nylon shirts over his poundage, declare himself a Rover and causing the ridiculing of a great club.

Have you and any of the clowns on here been close to any type of business? A whelk stall perhaps? Obviously not. And dont bleat on about relegation costing us £40m - the Trust knows that and hence their meetings and - you can bet on this - controlled but aggressive phone calls to Mr Williams.

It is absolutely your right to berate Ince or any other employee of the Rovers. But you have no right. No right at all. To question the morality and business acumen, nay the incredibly generosity of the people who own this club in the name of Jack Walker.

I think the main problem people have with the trustees is that we never hear from them. I do not think that any right minded Rovers supporter can be nothing but thankful and grateful to Jack Walker and putting the club into safe hands of the trustees. Supporters see the current situation with regards to the managers and players performance, see the league position and naturally want soem form of action. It would be nice for example if somebody representing the trust could come out and let the supporters know that they wil do all they can to prevent Rovers being relegated. But the silence - and to be fair - even in the good times - troubles supporters of Blackburn Rovers. At the end of the day it is totally up to the trustees if they want to remain silent etc - but it is fustrating for supporters who care about the club and it's current plight.

You are right most supporters (I include myself) have got no idea what a trust is, how a trust works etc and therefore speak out in ignorance, but also fustration as well.

[The Prof.]

Yes you do know. No trustees can take money out like that. That is exactly why Jack put the club in a Trusteeship rather than sell it to a private concern of the type all numpties on this board seem to want. Since Jack's death the Trustees have sunk in over £45m and converted debt to equity. In effect wiping out the £110m liability caused by Jack's noble spendfest. Name me one other owner in the UK which has done more than that. Then think of the likelihood of anyone else coming in with a promise to blow £3m a year without taking a salary, a dividend or any reward for the shameful abuse heaped upon them by people on this board. Who do you think you are? The Trust refused to sell to Williams. A magnificent decision. They asked for more money from Credit Crunch Ronnie and ..guess what... was the right decision. They didnt appoint Paul Ince and they dont select the side. What they do is prevent a Ridsdale like fantasist of the type who regularly post on here blowing ridiculous sums in pursuit of the impossible. They also prevent the raping and shaming of the club in the manner of Brighton, Wrexham, and dozens of other clubs, and stop clowns like Ashley pulling nylon shirts over his poundage, declare himself a Rover and causing the ridiculing of a great club.

Have you and any of the clowns on here been close to any type of business? A whelk stall perhaps? Obviously not. And dont bleat on about relegation costing us £40m - the Trust knows that and hence their meetings and - you can bet on this - controlled but aggressive phone calls to Mr Williams.

It is absolutely your right to berate Ince or any other employee of the Rovers. But you have no right. No right at all. To question the morality and business acumen, nay the incredibly generosity of the people who own this club in the name of Jack Walker.

This is a good post. However you can question their future commitment. and a couple of other points:

1. It's not their money is it.

2. The facelessness of the trust does give rise to concern. I want everyone to know that I'm doing a good job when I am.

3. The way money has been given and the debt absorption doesn't raise a feel good factor does it. Remember for every £1 given 50p of it will immediately increase their asset value. The other 50p might stop the asset value falling so it's good but not a givaway is it?

I suspect a bit of positive spin for them is in order but they don't seem to exist except as anonymous background figures.

[RevidgeBlue]

Yes you do know. No trustees can take money out like that. That is exactly why Jack put the club in a Trusteeship rather than sell it to a private concern of the type all numpties on this board seem to want. Since Jack's death the Trustees have sunk in over £45m and converted debt to equity. In effect wiping out the £110m liability caused by Jack's noble spendfest. Name me one other owner in the UK which has done more than that. Then think of the likelihood of anyone else coming in with a promise to blow £3m a year without taking a salary, a dividend or any reward for the shameful abuse heaped upon them by people on this board. Who do you think you are? The Trust refused to sell to Williams. A magnificent decision. They asked for more money from Credit Crunch Ronnie and ..guess what... was the right decision. They didnt appoint Paul Ince and they dont select the side. What they do is prevent a Ridsdale like fantasist of the type who regularly post on here blowing ridiculous sums in pursuit of the impossible. They also prevent the raping and shaming of the club in the manner of Brighton, Wrexham, and dozens of other clubs, and stop clowns like Ashley pulling nylon shirts over his poundage, declare himself a Rover and causing the ridiculing of a great club.

Have you and any of the clowns on here been close to any type of business? A whelk stall perhaps? Obviously not. And dont bleat on about relegation costing us £40m - the Trust knows that and hence their meetings and - you can bet on this - controlled but aggressive phone calls to Mr Williams.

It is absolutely your right to berate Ince or any other employee of the Rovers. But you have no right. No right at all. To question the morality and business acumen, nay the incredibly generosity of the people who own this club in the name of Jack Walker.

With respect I think you're missing the point completely.

It isn't their money so I think the word "generosity" is the wrong adjective to use when describing the Trustees actions. No matter how much money they might or might not be putting in at any particular time.

They were appointed to administer a Trust in accordance with Jack Walker's wishes and will be extremely well paid professionally for doing so. Are they following Jack's wishes? That's the be all and end all of it.

If not financially supporting successive managers and losing an incredibly successful one (Hughes) as a result is the way Jack Walker wanted to go I'd be majorly surprised.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

This is a good post. However you can question their future commitment. and a couple of other points:

1. It's not their money is it.

2. The facelessness of the trust does give rise to concern. I want everyone to know that I'm doing a good job when I am.

3. The way money has been given and the debt absorption doesn't raise a feel good factor does it. Remember for every £1 given 50p of it will immediately increase their asset value. The other 50p might stop the asset value falling so it's good but not a givaway is it?

I suspect a bit of positive spin for them is in order but they don't seem to exist except as anonymous background figures.

I am sorry - but why should they do anything for you ?

I am a little lost by the constant berating of the trust - look at Burnley, Blackpool, Preston - name me another Lancs club with our level of fan base that gets the sort of support that we do. Jack left a legacy for the long term good of the club. I honestly think - if they think we are at risk of going down - they will loosen the purse strings. Not just because it protects their investment - but I sincerely believe that Jacks final wish would be to not see his beloved team relegated again.

It was such a shame that he wasn't around to see the promotion back to the Premiership - if anyone deserved it he did.

I have faith that Jack wil have ensured that everything that the trust does is for the long term good of the club - we shoudl all place our trust in Jack and his legacy

[Fife Rover]

Nice to know he's given Saturday up already. Cheers Incey.

BTW, it's probably been done to death elsewhere but what about Burnley's performance tonight? A young inexperienced, lower division manager takes over a rag bag outfit, remoulds them in a certain style, gives them belief and confidence and beats (comprehensively) one of the country's 'big 4' teams.

I wonder....

Two actually......they beat Chelsea in the previous round, and at the Bridge to boot!! Now perhaps people will begin to believe what I have been saying ever since Owen Coyle's appointment; he is a VERY good manager who I have known for almost 20 years. Underrate him at your peril!! If you really want something to worry about you should now be considering the unthinkable thought...what if Rovers and Burnley exchange places with each other at the end of this season??????

[allanncd]

I suspect the reason there is little or no money to spend in January is that the summer inflow from Bentley and Hughes compensation was earmarked by the bank to reduce the overdraft - and now they certainly won't be letting them put it up again. The only other source of funds is the Trust but with a low-cost airline as another cash-draining business even they are probably with their backs to the wall. In fact very few clubs except City and possibly Toon have any significant funds to spend in January. Ironically it's Rovers players who are at the top of their shopping lists.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I suspect the reason there is little or no money to spend in January is that the summer inflow from Bentley and Hughes compensation was earmarked by the bank to reduce the overdraft - and now they certainly won't be letting them put it up again. The only other source of funds is the Trust but with a low-cost airline as another cash-draining business even they are probably with their backs to the wall. In fact very few clubs except City and possibly Toon have any significant funds to spend in January. Ironically it's Rovers players who are at the top of their shopping lists.

I think you will find the budget airline in question has just announced record profits- which goes against the peril the rest of the aviation industry find themselves in.

Another point that you and many other fans miss is where has the extra 20 million tv revenue disappeared? Certainly not in wages

[allanncd]

Profits earned more than 12 months ago are irrelevant . Have you not noticed there's been banks collapsing in he last 3 months. In this situation cashflow is everything and that's dried up quicker than snow on a cooker. Get real!

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Profits earned more than 12 months ago are irrelevant . Have you not noticed there's been banks collapsing in he last 3 months. In this situation cashflow is everything and that's dried up quicker than snow on a cooker. Get real!

As far as I am aware no football club has lost any money from the credit crunch- especially in terms of deposits which I think you are trying to get at. If you are trying to make the point that the banks will not lend any more money to clubs then I agree. We owe the banks around 20million which is nothing compared to other similar sized clubs. Now if we were to get relegated this season that overdraft would cause a significant concern. This is why the Trust’s ‘halfway house’, ‘do nothing approach’ simply won’t suffice.

Your original point does not make sense- you state that Flybe is in some sort of financial trouble- which it clearly is not.

Posters can keep on protecting the Trust and running down Ince. Yet it is clear that they are as much to blame for our current predicament as our “out his depth manager”

[Tris]

With respect I think you're missing the point completely.

It isn't their money so I think the word "generosity" is the wrong adjective to use when describing the Trustees actions. No matter how much money they might or might not be putting in at any particular time.

They were appointed to administer a Trust in accordance with Jack Walker's wishes and will be extremely well paid professionally for doing so. Are they following Jack's wishes? That's the be all and end all of it.

They've made a fantastic success of running the rest of what JW left behind. Of course it's not "their money" but they will be expected to treat it as if it is their money.

Pumping millions of quid into a loss making football club doesn't fit within any model of success - but it must have been Jack's wish that Rovers received that support. Otherwise it wouldn't happen.

It astonishes me that Rovers fans still think that there's a better backer / owner / rich idiot out there who's going to suddenly make us compete with Chelsea and the Abu Dhabi royals. We should take the #3 million quid and thank Jack for it.

[T4E]

The £3m that was promised this Summer but never appeared?

[mattyboy6000]

The £3m that was promised this Summer but never appeared?

doesn't suprise me. as stated previously this £3m is accrued from interest earned on the capital held by the Walkers.

In my view, It was Jack's investment when he was alive took us back into the Premier League.

Since his death the Trust have overseen appointing Sparky which was a masterstroke, not supporting him later - ie withholding the £3m- was a huge mistake. Although you could argue we could have ended up buying several Rigters/Grabbis/Dahlins.

Granted Jack's ambition was for us to be self sustaining. However, I'm uncertain whether this was to be interpreted as balance the books year on year, or say,- if you write-off £3m debt on year but in doing so secure a net £6m profit generated from better league position and associated revenues the following year- the latter would seem more than satisfactory to me. However, in our current position I wouldn't suggest spending £3m now would be beneficial - Vincent Grella case in point. What we need is an evalution of what's changed- training routines, coaching, leadership- and what needs to be done to get us back to previously seen levels.

[Al]

doesn't suprise me. as stated previously this £3m is accrued from interest earned on the capital held by the Walkers.

In my view, It was Jack's investment when he was alive took us back into the Premier League.

Since his death the Trust have overseen appointing Sparky which was a masterstroke, not supporting him later - ie withholding the £3m- was a huge mistake. Although you could argue we could have ended up buying several Rigters/Grabbis/Dahlins.

Granted Jack's ambition was for us to be self sustaining. However, I'm uncertain whether this was to be interpreted as balance the books year on year, or say,- if you write-off £3m debt on year but in doing so secure a net £6m profit generated from better league position and associated revenues the following year- the latter would seem more than satisfactory to me. However, in our current position I wouldn't suggest spending £3m now would be beneficial - Vincent Grella case in point. What we need is an evalution of what's changed- training routines, coaching, leadership- and what needs to be done to get us back to previously seen levels.

And £20mil or so to strengthen the team and a new manager. We have no right winger and the rest, as a unit, are just not good enough. No investment means Burnley change places with us.

[mattyboy6000]

And £20mil or so to strengthen the team and a new manager. We have no right winger and the rest, as a unit, are just not good enough. No investment means Burnley change places with us.

£20m well spent - sure. But I am convinced Ince has neither the scouts or contacts to make sure that happens. Plenty of examples of teams who have spent much more than that and fallen flat on their faces.

yesterday we lacked width on both sides- especially the left flank. we need a modern day wilcox and ripley

[philipl]

As far as I am aware no football club has lost any money from the credit crunch- especially in terms of deposits which I think you are trying to get at. If you are trying to make the point that the banks will not lend any more money to clubs then I agree. We owe the banks around 20million which is nothing compared to other similar sized clubs. Now if we were to get relegated this season that overdraft would cause a significant concern. This is why the Trust’s ‘halfway house’, ‘do nothing approach’ simply won’t suffice.

Your original point does not make sense- you state that Flybe is in some sort of financial trouble- which it clearly is not.

Posters can keep on protecting the Trust and running down Ince. Yet it is clear that they are as much to blame for our current predicament as our “out his depth manager”

I have taken a deep breath and will simply say iamarover made an excellent post.

The sequence of events is the following:

Rovers started the 07/8 season which is the first with the enhanced Sky/Setanta deal with a bank overdraft of £21m which had been run up in the summer of 2006 when the club spent ahead of the transfer market going crazy knowing it would do as the new media deal fed through the Premier League system.

That "investment" sustained the top ten finishes in 06/7 and 07/8.

The last annual report simply said that the club intended to let wages rise to £40m (compared with £33m in 06/7) and return the overdraft to the previous level of £15m- so roughly £10m of the £20m BNSG bangs on about was earmarked for non-transfer activities and not surprisingly the other £10m was the transfer budget handed over to Mark Hughes in April/May.

This is the bit that will get some folks squealing- about £15m was handed to Paul Ince as his transfer budget when he was appointed. However, through a combination of reasons including Ince wanting to buy cheap players he was familiar with, his unwillingnes to commit funds until he felt he really knew the squad (which is a very honourable and decent position to hold) and his belief that Emerton was/is his replacement for Bentley, Ince ended up making an £8m profit and not spending the £15m when the window closed on 2 September.

It is not inconceivable that there might have been the incredible situation that the Chairman of Blackburn Rovers was telling the Manager to spend money on better and more expensive players than he was proposing to.....

Anyway, the result I believe is that Rovers pretty well paid off the rest of the £15m overdraft by August (and certain posters can have a jolly good time in their posts in a few weeks' time when the annual results are published if I am proven incorrect).

Now anybody running any business will know that borrowing money from the banks today is a world removed from how borrowing up to your overdraft limit and beyond used to be back in August. Unused borrowing facilities are being shredded whether you are an airline, a football club, or anything else with a commercial pulse.

Add to that, Rovers in August were perennial top half whereas Rovers in December are relegation favourites. Lord Triesman, Michel Platini and acres of newsprint have now been devoted to the problems of Premier League undebtedness just to make the banking fraternity even more suicidal about lending to football clubs. I have no inside information on the Rovers' current overdraft facility but let's say it has probably not increased, if one exists at all now.

So BNSG, all of the £20m has unwittingly and unintentionally gone in repaying the club's overdraft facility and we are not going to get that spending power back. However, we are in a new season in which we are pretty well guarranteed to make nearly £10m profit even if we come 20th and gates fall by an average of 4,000 which is where I think we are headed at the moment. So there is some spending money for January but Paul Ince doesn't seem to have come to terms with the fact that the bank has probably pocketed what he thought he had saved from summer.

And that was in neither the club's nor the Trustees' plan.

[thebigguy]

Dont forget that some companies will be unwilling to invest loads of money into club sponsership which will impact the clubs with lower turn over from attendances like us and if we get relegated then we could loss some off the attendances and sponserships(only if there contracts are ending very very soon)

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I have taken a deep breath and will simply say iamarover made an excellent post.

The sequence of events is the following:

Rovers started the 07/8 season which is the first with the enhanced Sky/Setanta deal with a bank overdraft of £21m which had been run up in the summer of 2006 when the club spent ahead of the transfer market going crazy knowing it would do as the new media deal fed through the Premier League system.

That "investment" sustained the top ten finishes in 06/7 and 07/8.

The last annual report simply said that the club intended to let wages rise to £40m (compared with £33m in 06/7) and return the overdraft to the previous level of £15m- so roughly £10m of the £20m BNSG bangs on about was earmarked for non-transfer activities and not surprisingly the other £10m was the transfer budget handed over to Mark Hughes in April/May.

This is the bit that will get some folks squealing- about £15m was handed to Paul Ince as his transfer budget when he was appointed. However, through a combination of reasons including Ince wanting to buy cheap players he was familiar with, his unwillingnes to commit funds until he felt he really knew the squad (which is a very honourable and decent position to hold) and his belief that Emerton was/is his replacement for Bentley, Ince ended up making an £8m profit and not spending the £15m when the window closed on 2 September.

It is not inconceivable that there might have been the incredible situation that the Chairman of Blackburn Rovers was telling the Manager to spend money on better and more expensive players than he was proposing to.....

Anyway, the result I believe is that Rovers pretty well paid off the rest of the £15m overdraft by August (and certain posters can have a jolly good time in their posts in a few weeks' time when the annual results are published if I am proven incorrect).

Now anybody running any business will know that borrowing money from the banks today is a world removed from how borrowing up to your overdraft limit and beyond used to be back in August. Unused borrowing facilities are being shredded whether you are an airline, a football club, or anything else with a commercial pulse.

Add to that, Rovers in August were perennial top half whereas Rovers in December are relegation favourites. Lord Triesman, Michel Platini and acres of newsprint have now been devoted to the problems of Premier League undebtedness just to make the banking fraternity even more suicidal about lending to football clubs. I have no inside information on the Rovers' current overdraft facility but let's say it has probably not increased, if one exists at all now.

So BNSG, all of the £20m has unwittingly and unintentionally gone in repaying the club's overdraft facility and we are not going to get that spending power back. However, we are in a new season in which we are pretty well guarranteed to make nearly £10m profit even if we come 20th and gates fall by an average of 4,000 which is where I think we are headed at the moment. So there is some spending money for January but Paul Ince doesn't seem to have come to terms with the fact that the bank has probably pocketed what he thought he had saved from summer.

And that was in neither the club's nor the Trustees' plan.

So basically Philpl you are agreeing with my stance that there should be more money available than there currently appears to be? And yes you will also find in my post (which you trying you’re hardest to disagree with) that borrowing more money from banks is no no (what I actually said was; any profit made would not of been ‘wiped out’ as a result of the banking system collapse as an earlier poster reiterated).

What exactly are you trying to disagree with?

[DanLad]

I think Phil was just responding.

Doesn't he just effectively say that the money has gone towards the overdraft, but we won't get as good overdraft facilities this year?

[Dave S]

Phil

How sure are you that the £8m or so that Ince saved/didn't spend has gone to the overdraught?

Is there a possibility that some has been held back to purchase a winger in January?

The club were rumoured to be attempting to buy the likes of Joachim from Valencia or Pennant, which would have used up a significant part of this money. Not being able to buy these players would have have resulted in a sensible wait til Jan policy rather than a panic buy at the end of August.

[philipl]

Phil

How sure are you that the £8m or so that Ince saved/didn't spend has gone to the overdraught?

Is there a possibility that some has been held back to purchase a winger in January?

The club were rumoured to be attempting to buy the likes of Joachim from Valencia or Pennant, which would have used up a significant part of this money. Not being able to buy these players would have have resulted in a sensible wait til Jan policy rather than a panic buy at the end of August.

Company overdrafts work essentially the same way as a personal overdraft.

Suppose you had a facility for £1500, got a temporary extension to £2,100 because at the year-end you know you are getting a £2,000 bonus. Bonus comes in and your overdraft usage drops to £100. Sell off your car and by a bike, you put the £800 profit in your bank account so you have got no overdraft. If the bank then writes to you and tells you that there's been a change of policy blah blah, you are stuck because you haven't got/spent their money.

And that nifty Spanish holiday you thought you would take in August would now cost you 25% more because of the fall in the £ against the Euro...

The Rovers might be lucky and still have the bank facility but the security terms asked of the parent- the Trustees- might now be so onerous in these credit constrained times that the Trustees would be better placed lending the money themselves.

The noises coming out of Paul Ince on the otherhand rather suggest that the club's borrowing ability has been completely chopped by the bank.

[Dave S]

The noises coming out of Paul Ince on the otherhand rather suggest that the club's borrowing ability has been completely chopped by the bank.

This is what I was worried about over the last few weeks.

Either that or the Trust and Club do not have the confidence that Ince could spend it wisely.

Which would then suggest he will be gone sooner rather than later.

[dave birch]

Company overdrafts work essentially the same way as a personal overdraft.

Suppose you had a facility for £1500, got a temporary extension to £2,100 because at the year-end you know you are getting a £2,000 bonus. Bonus comes in and your overdraft usage drops to £100. Sell off your car and by a bike, you put the £800 profit in your bank account so you have got no overdraft. If the bank then writes to you and tells you that there's been a change of policy blah blah, you are stuck because you haven't got/spent their money.

And that nifty Spanish holiday you thought you would take in August would now cost you 25% more because of the fall in the £ against the Euro...

The Rovers might be lucky and still have the bank facility but the security terms asked of the parent- the Trustees- might now be so onerous in these credit constrained times that the Trustees would be better placed lending the money themselves.

The noises coming out of Paul Ince on the otherhand rather suggest that the club's borrowing ability has been completely chopped by the bank.

philip, whilst I can see where you're coming from, I think that the Trust would have enough "clout" with the bank to make sure that some facility would be maintained. It would (or should) have ensured that any unused transfer funds be put against any debt, to reduce interest, but be available if needed. If you have the right security, there's pots of money around.

[philipl]

philip, whilst I can see where you're coming from, I think that the Trust would have enough "clout" with the bank to make sure that some facility would be maintained. It would (or should) have ensured that any unused transfer funds be put against any debt, to reduce interest, but be available if needed. If you have the right security, there's pots of money around.

Agreed but I am seeing security terms being dramatically changed irrespective of clout. And if either of us were considering making a loan to Rovers today compared with one organised a year ago, the theoretic risk of relegation is replaced by the bottom of the Premier League table today.

[Hughesy]

... Wrong topic